• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Repeat Transurethral Resection for Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in the Contemporary Era

T. Yanagisawa, T. Kawada, M. von Deimling, K. Bekku, E. Laukhtina, P. Rajwa, M. Chlosta, B. Pradere, D. D'Andrea, M. Moschini, PI. Karakiewicz, JY. Teoh, J. Miki, T. Kimura, SF. Shariat

. 2024 ; 10 (1) : 41-56. [pub] 20230724

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu metaanalýza, systematický přehled, časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24007841

CONTEXT: Repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) is a guideline-recommended treatment strategy in high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT); however, the impact of recent procedural/technological developments on reTUR outcomes has not been assessed yet. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of reTUR for NMIBC in the contemporary era, focusing on whether temporal differences and technical advancement, specifically, photodynamic diagnosis and en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT), affect the outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were queried in February 2023 for studies investigating reTUR outcomes, such as residual tumor and/or upstaging rates, its predictive factors, and oncologic outcomes, including recurrence-free (RFS), progression-free (PFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival. We synthesized comparative outcomes adjusting for the effect of possible confounders. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 81 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. In T1 patients initially treated with conventional TURBT (cTURBT) in the 2010s, the pooled rates of any residual tumors and upstaging on reTUR were 31.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.0-37.2%) and 2.8% (95% CI: 2.0-3.8%), respectively. Despite a potential publication bias, these rates were significantly lower than those in patients treated in the 1990-2000s (both p < 0.001). ERBT and visual enhancement-guided cTURBT significantly improved any residual tumor rates on reTUR compared with cTURBT based on both matched-cohort and multivariable analyses. Among studies adjusting for the effect of possible confounders, patients who underwent reTUR had better RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97) and OS (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.93) than those who did not, while it did not lead to superior PFS (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.15) and CSS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: reTUR is currently recommended for high-risk NMIBC based on the persistent high rates of residual tumors after primary resection. Improvement of resection quality based on checklist applications and recent technical/procedural advancements hold the promise to omit reTUR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Recent endoscopic/procedural developments improve the outcomes of repeat resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Further investigations are urgently needed to clarify the potential impact of the use of these techniques on the need for repeat transurethral resection in the contemporary era.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24007841
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240423160325.0
007      
ta
008      
240412s2024 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.euf.2023.07.002 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37495458
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Yanagisawa, Takafumi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
245    10
$a Repeat Transurethral Resection for Non-muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in the Contemporary Era / $c T. Yanagisawa, T. Kawada, M. von Deimling, K. Bekku, E. Laukhtina, P. Rajwa, M. Chlosta, B. Pradere, D. D'Andrea, M. Moschini, PI. Karakiewicz, JY. Teoh, J. Miki, T. Kimura, SF. Shariat
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: Repeat transurethral resection (reTUR) is a guideline-recommended treatment strategy in high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) patients treated with transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT); however, the impact of recent procedural/technological developments on reTUR outcomes has not been assessed yet. OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of reTUR for NMIBC in the contemporary era, focusing on whether temporal differences and technical advancement, specifically, photodynamic diagnosis and en bloc resection of bladder tumor (ERBT), affect the outcomes. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Multiple databases were queried in February 2023 for studies investigating reTUR outcomes, such as residual tumor and/or upstaging rates, its predictive factors, and oncologic outcomes, including recurrence-free (RFS), progression-free (PFS), cancer-specific (CSS), and overall (OS) survival. We synthesized comparative outcomes adjusting for the effect of possible confounders. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, 81 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. In T1 patients initially treated with conventional TURBT (cTURBT) in the 2010s, the pooled rates of any residual tumors and upstaging on reTUR were 31.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.0-37.2%) and 2.8% (95% CI: 2.0-3.8%), respectively. Despite a potential publication bias, these rates were significantly lower than those in patients treated in the 1990-2000s (both p < 0.001). ERBT and visual enhancement-guided cTURBT significantly improved any residual tumor rates on reTUR compared with cTURBT based on both matched-cohort and multivariable analyses. Among studies adjusting for the effect of possible confounders, patients who underwent reTUR had better RFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97) and OS (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.81-0.93) than those who did not, while it did not lead to superior PFS (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.47-1.15) and CSS (HR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: reTUR is currently recommended for high-risk NMIBC based on the persistent high rates of residual tumors after primary resection. Improvement of resection quality based on checklist applications and recent technical/procedural advancements hold the promise to omit reTUR. PATIENT SUMMARY: Recent endoscopic/procedural developments improve the outcomes of repeat resection for high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Further investigations are urgently needed to clarify the potential impact of the use of these techniques on the need for repeat transurethral resection in the contemporary era.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a reziduální nádor $x chirurgie $7 D018365
650    12
$a nádory močového měchýře neinvadující svalovinu $7 D000093284
650    12
$a nádory močového měchýře $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D001749
650    _2
$a urologické chirurgické výkony $7 D013520
650    _2
$a cystektomie $x metody $7 D015653
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Kawada, Tatsushi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
700    1_
$a von Deimling, Markus $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
700    1_
$a Bekku, Kensuke $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
700    1_
$a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
700    1_
$a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
700    1_
$a Chlosta, Marcin $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Clinic of Urology and Urological Oncology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
700    1_
$a Pradere, Benjamin $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, La Croix Du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
700    1_
$a D'Andrea, David $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Moschini, Marco $u Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
700    1_
$a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada
700    1_
$a Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun $u S.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
700    1_
$a Miki, Jun $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Kimura, Takahiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
700    1_
$a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at
773    0_
$w MED00193513 $t European urology focus $x 2405-4569 $g Roč. 10, č. 1 (2024), s. 41-56
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37495458 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240412 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240423160321 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2081694 $s 1217608
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 10 $c 1 $d 41-56 $e 20230724 $i 2405-4569 $m European urology focus $n Eur Urol Focus $x MED00193513
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240412

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace